Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The test is that the decision-making process is key and the councillor demonstrates the ability to listen to the argument and to vote accordingly at the time of the decision-making. That is the current position in law. There is no suggestion that because somebody has campaigned on an issue they should not be free. Indeed, I think the House would acknowledge that people who have campaigned on issues should be free, as long as they demonstrate at the point at which the decision is being made that they have been prepared to consider opposing arguments. The fact that they have voted in accordance with their previous position does not necessarily mean that they predetermined the decision. That is precisely what this clause is designed to make clear.

I hope noble Lords will understand that this is a genuine attempt to provide clarification on a difficult area. To the extent that Amendment 165B has been tabled to suggest that this should be subject to review, it is unnecessary because, as we stated in our published impact assessment for this provision, there will be a post-implementation review to ascertain its impact. It will provide all the information that noble Lords have been seeking through presenting Amendment 165B. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Beecham for their support on this amendment. I am sorry if collectively—it is probably my fault—we have confused the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

I do not think the Minister’s response has moved us forward on this issue. If anything, I think it has moved us backwards. We accept that these are complex issues and that drafting legislation is difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he thought that the courts have hitherto got the balance about right. If the Minister thinks through the logic of what he has just said, if you can judge whether somebody had a closed mind only at the point of taking a decision, and if you have to leave aside and close your mind to all the previous evidence, even though any reasonable person might say that in particular circumstances it was abundantly clear that an individual had closed his mind, could that not leave the process open to massive abuse, because all somebody who wishes to thwart or support a decision needs to do is to behave sensibly and appropriately on the day at the point of the decision-making, even though he might have made his position absolutely clear before that? I am not a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, certainly is, but it seems to me that the position he put in his example—that Clause 14(2) means that you have to exclude all that evidence when it comes to court, if that is where it arrives, and the Minister said that you do—must constitute a change in the law as it is at the moment. I do not think that the Government are in the right place. We are not trying to be difficult. This is not a party political issue, and I understand the Minister trying to get it right for councillors so that they are free of the fear that they may have been subject to to date, but I simply do not think that the Government are right. We are obviously not going to press Amendment 165A tonight, but I urge that we have the opportunity to have some discussion with officials between now and Third Reading—and I would welcome the input of other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—with the right to bring it back if necessary. There is a risk that we are changing the law.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Of course we are always happy to discuss matters further, but I wanted to make the Government’s position quite clear. The clarification in Clause 14 is designed to make clear that there is a point at which predetermination can be adjudged, and that is the point at which a decision is made. To present any other points as being the point at which predetermination exists obviously becomes extremely complicated because you get involved with statements that have been made before the decision was presented before the member concerned.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I understand exactly that it is at the point at which the decision is made that people’s minds ultimately become closed, but that is where some judgment must be made. The issue is whether in making that judgment you ignore everything that has gone before. That is the point that we are struggling to understand.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, as we have heard, the government amendment requires consultation before there is any delegation or variation of a delegation of ministerial powers to the Mayor of London. This consultation must take place with each London borough, the Common Council of the City of London, and the Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord True, requires consultation on whether the function could be more appropriately conducted at borough level and, if a majority thinks so, an explanation has to be given to Parliament. We obviously support the consultation and the government amendment, but there is no specific guidance in the amendment as to what might result from such consultation. There is no specific requirement to publish the results, produce a response or indeed report to Parliament. Could the Minister give us some more details about these matters? If, for example, the consultation were to be overwhelmingly hostile to the concept, would it still proceed? Can he give us an idea of the type of eligible functions likely to be involved in the sort of delegation contemplated?

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord True, with which, like my noble friend Lord Beecham, I have some sympathy, raises an interesting point about the role of London boroughs and their equivalents under the so-called Core Cities amendments, which we will shortly come to. Should it be accepted at any stage that the boroughs—one or all of them—would be a better destination for such delegation, and what powers in the Bill would allow that to happen?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing all these points to bear on what is actually quite a difficult balancing act, and I think noble Lords will agree. I am not a London person, but I come from a two-tier authority. I live in a county council area and in a district council area, and the responsibilities between those two councils are usually clearly defined by statute. I think the governance of London is more involved. The Government’s policy intention is to try to keep an even balance between the democratic mandate which is vested in the mayor and the London Assembly and the democratic mandate which is vested in the London boroughs. I am sure all noble Lords will agree that keeping that balance right is not easy.

Much of the talk has been about how the consultation might go and the consequences of a consultation where perhaps the proposals do not meet with consensus. These are reasonable challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked whether the joint council body for London would be consulted. It is a matter of fact that it would be consulted; I do not know it is a statutory body as such, but it is clearly a body that would be validly consulted. This would not, however, avoid proper consultation with the individual boroughs. It is very important to place on record that these government amendments seek to enshrine the role of the boroughs themselves. Indeed, they are coloured by the amendment of my noble friend Lord True, which seeks to go further in protecting the interests of the boroughs. I understand that.

I was asked how Parliament would be able to challenge any decisions that might be made in this area. In reality, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and I cannot imagine a decision considered by any noble Lord to be totally unfair or irrational to go unchallenged, either by question or even debate in this House, let alone down the other end where quite a large number of Members represent London constituencies.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

While I await the answer to that part of the process, perhaps I may continue with the process of consultation. It is important to get this on the record too. The consultation exercise will have to be appropriate to the matter in question. The problem with being too prescriptive about the nature of the consultation is that it does not have room for more flexible responses. Consultation should not be a tick-box exercise. It is a proper dialogue. It should not really be about whether it has majority support or not but about what is right, and consensus should be sought across the boroughs and London in the interests of the people of London. In the end, the governance of London is not for the benefit of the mayor, the Assembly or the London boroughs; it is for the people who live there.

In response to my noble friend’s challenging question, the process is outside the statutory instrument process. It is purely an administrative function. However, the decision is still capable of being challenged in Parliament, as I have said, if it is seen to be perverse. There are no immediate plans to use this power, but it is envisaged that it could be used to delegate the administration of some of the national programmes that may be produced on the horizon. That is why it is important to have this capacity and a process whereby there can be discussions across London as to where a national programme might be best delivered.

My noble friend Lord True castigated us, in the nicest possible way, as he would, for not recognising that the Localism Bill is the place where, by empowering local boroughs, we would enhance localism within London. The role of the boroughs is clearly laid down by statute, and they are a very important part of London’s governance. However, London is an exceptional place—it is the capital city of the country—and a number of services are effectively organised across London. The power to delegate arises only when the Secretary of State considers that the functions can be exercised appropriately by the mayor. We say that this provides the sort of comfort which my noble friend seeks. In effect, only a Minister exercising his powers under this clause can do this.

I hope that my noble friend will feel free to withdraw his amendment. I believe that the Government have got the balance on this issue just about right.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Should it be decided at some stage that a delegation of ministerial functions to a borough or a group of boroughs is a preferred route, does the structure of the Bill permit that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thought the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was asking me whether, in future legislation, responsibilities could be delegated to boroughs.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I have obviously not been clear enough. I was asking whether, if at some point in the future it were decided to delegate responsibilities to a London borough, the Bill, or any other piece of existing legislation, provides authority for that. I think my question is the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin: does the Bill permit that delegation now or at some stage in the future?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Is the noble Lord asking whether this can work the other way around and that powers that are currently vested in the mayor should be delegated to the boroughs?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry; we are getting into a Committee-type exchange. No, it was just that, as I understand it, the Bill permits ministerial functions to be delegated to the mayor, subject now to the consultation that the amendment is focused on. The noble Lord, Lord True, was asking about delegation not to the mayor but to London boroughs. I think the Minister responded that that was not being contemplated. My question is: if the decision were taken tomorrow that it would be more appropriate to delegate some functions from Ministers to London boroughs, does the Bill permit that? Is that in accordance with the Bill?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The simple answer is no, it is not in the Bill.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 12th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, it seems to me that the concept of sharing back-office and administrative services is entirely reasonable and I can see the benefits that might flow from that. My noble friend raises an interesting question as to how it works and whether there is a discussion or an imposition when new bodies are brought in. I suppose I am a little surprised that there are not the general powers already available for the sharing of these functions but I support the thrust of this.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I assure the noble Lord that we would not be tabling amendments if the power were already in existence—no, it does not exist, which is perhaps surprising to noble Lords, but I hope that with the consent of the House it will in future. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his question and I reassure him that any decision on these fronts has to be mutually agreed. This is really designed to be of advantage to both parties and for the people of London.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have Amendments 156A and 156B in this group, which relate to penalty levels. I thank again the RTPI, which welcomes the increase in penalty level proposed in the Bill but considers that it should be even higher. This, it is argued, will help concentrate the minds of magistrates and help focus on the potential seriousness of offences. Amendment 156A is proposed by way of probing the rationale behind the level set by the Government. Equally probing is the amendment to Clause 110(2)(b), which relates to land situated in Wales. Doubtless there is an extensive and constitutional reason why there is a difference between levels of penalty in England and Wales. Perhaps the Minister could let us know how that works.

On government Amendment 155C, it is a bit odd to serve a notice on somebody and then write them a letter and say, “Well, in a sense, we didn’t mean it”. It seems rather a bizarre solution to an issue which I accept has to be dealt with. I wonder whether there is not a more elegant way of avoiding serving the notice on the landlord in the first instance. There may be other ramifications of not doing so, but to serve a notice and then to say, “Well, don’t worry—we’re not going to prosecute”, seems rather an odd thing for government to do.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, perhaps I may address first the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Abolishing the limitation for enforcement action would be an extremely radical step for which the Government and planning professionals have no appetite. As we have just debated in the context of Clause 109, the Law Society thought that our original proposals for restarting the enforcement clock would have had a chilling effect on the property market. I fear that this amendment would put the markets into a deep freeze. If the amendment were to be approved, Clause 109 would become redundant; there would be no need to start the enforcement clock if there was no clock to start with. The purpose of having time limits for taking enforcement action is to provide certainty, particularly for purchasers. Excepting cases of deliberate concealment, as envisaged by Clause 109, if an unauthorised development or changes of use have not been notified within the time limits, they are probably not doing great damage. If the owner at the time was liable for an enforcement action in perpetuity, people would be reluctant to buy without a full planning history and the markets would be unwilling to lend against properties. I hope that my noble friend understands that argument.

The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie—Amendments 156A and 156B—are designed as a probe to try to evaluate at what level we can pitch penalties. I should remind the noble Lord that we are already proposing a significant increase in the fine for failing to comply with a breach of condition notice. The maximum fine would be raised from £1,000 to £2,500, which is level 4. This increase should have a considerable deterrent effect on those who are served with a notice and might otherwise be tempted to ignore it. To increase the maximum fine even further, to £5,000, which is level 5 in England, as the amendments propose, would be disproportionate to the offence. Level 4 fines already apply to the offences of displaying an illegal advertisement and non-permanent damage to a protected tree, which are comparable offences in scale and severity. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

I remind noble Lords that this is an England-only provision; Welsh Ministers would have to consent to any change to the provisions in the 1990 Act which apply to Wales. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I support these amendments. A powerful case has been made. When I studied the amendments, I thought a slightly different argument might be advanced. As I understand it, issues around remedying persistent problems with unauthorised advertisements in the Bill are the subject of right of appeal to magistrates’ courts. It is just the non-persistent problems and the power to remove structures in Clause 111 that the amendment seeks to bring within the remit of the magistrates’ courts. If I have misunderstood that, doubtless the Minister will put me right. But there is an imbalance between those two situations, which will be remedied by the proposition in the amendment. Quite apart from that, the amendment should stand on its own. There is a proper issue of justice here, and a right to appeal to a magistrates’ court.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for introducing this amendment and my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for speaking to it, as well as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We understand the nub of the issue, as the noble Lord Borrie, presented it. It is to provide a speedier and more cost-effective means of challenging a removal notice as empowered under the Bill, especially where consent, or deemed consent, to display an advertisement already exists. But the magistrates’ courts are already heavily loaded with cases, and we should be cautious about increasing the burden on them unnecessarily. We should also be wary of giving any rogue hoarding owners the opportunity to delay the enforcement process by appealing against local authorities for no good reason.

The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is quite right. The amendment draws heavily on the London experience. I note that these measures have been operating in London since 1995 without the benefit of a right of appeal. In that time, I understand that there have been only five judicial reviews against removal notices, so I hope that the noble Lord will understand the Government’s reasoning on this issue.

Included in the group is government Amendment 166ZA. It is a minor drafting amendment to page 100, which deletes subsection (3) of proposed new Section 225J. Noble Lords will, I am sure, have observed that the words are very similar to those in subsection (4)(a). They are superfluous and should be omitted.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Could the Minister help us out? Why is there the differential treatment in terms of rights of appeal to a magistrates’ court—assuming I am right on that—where there are persistent problems with unauthorised advertisements, compared to those where there is simply the power to remove structures for what may be ad hoc, unauthorised display?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I can summarise it best by saying that they are two different orders of problems for local authorities. The reasoning for these proposals is obviously based on the London experience, which has provided local authorities in London with an effective way of dealing with the larger structure problems that one can have, where displays are put on unauthorised structures and their speedy removal is in the public interest.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Would the Minister repeat what has been placed in the Library this week? Was this today or yesterday? What notification has been given of that?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry, my Lords, my notes here say that it was placed in the House Library this week for information. Indeed, I think that I referred earlier to draft regulations that have been placed in the Library this week for the information of noble Lords. I hope that that will inform this debate. We are going on to debate housing, though probably not this evening, so noble Lords will have an opportunity to swot up on those.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned neighbourhood planning. She wanted to know how it would protect minority groups. Neighbourhood plans will be tested at an independent examination and must have regard to the national policy and be in line with strategic elements of the local plan. Everyone has the right to be heard at the examination, and human rights issues can be considered.

I come to the point made before we broke by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about two authorities with some tension trying to deal with an issue that was affecting their neighbourhoods. Compliance with the duty to co-operate is assessed through the independent examination of draft local plans, and failure to demonstrate satisfactory compliance risks the local plan failing the examination. Having no local plan means that councils lose control of how their area will develop. This disfranchises their constituents, who will hold them to account, as I said in my previous comments.

I would like to correct something that I said. When I said that the draft regulations had been put in the Library this week, I meant last week. Unfortunately, we are all suffering from a slight sense of jet lag as the Bill is moving with such rapidity through the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the low housing build. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will reflect on the fact that this extends back into the period of the previous Administration. We must remember that the market for housing has suffered for reasons entirely unconnected with planning. However, the experience is that numbers in regional plans did not provide a reliable indication of the number of homes actually being built. We know that indicative planning at the regional level for housing need caused huge stress within the system.

We will shortly be publishing the new national planning policy framework, which reviews all national planning policy. I know that my ministerial colleagues understand and take seriously ensuring that the new policy framework makes clear the need for local authorities to understand the housing needs of all people in their area and to monitor the effectiveness of their policies. We will shortly be consulting on the draft of the framework, and will listen to all the views on this and other areas to ensure that the policy is as strong as it can be. I hope that that encourages the noble Baroness and that she will feel free to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before the noble Baroness answers, can I thank the Minister for alerting us to the regulations which have been posted in the Library? It is very difficult to keep abreast of what is going on in this Bill. We had some government amendments tabled yesterday of which we had no prior notice and it does not help an expeditious focus on the Bill.

Those, together with the NPPF, as soon as we get it, will reassure us on some of these points, although we would like to see this obligation embodied in primary legislation on the face of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Whitty encapsulated a debate which we will have more intensely in due course about the problems and challenges in respect of housing in the UK at the moment. Regional spatial strategies are not necessarily flavour of the month but, if you look at the record, there were years when they were beginning to deliver. If you look at 2007-08, we had the highest levels of house building for something like 20 years, just as that process was beginning to get under way.

I am grateful for the support of other noble Lords who have spoken and I am still unclear about the central issue of when you have a dispute between neighbouring authorities over housing provision and how, in terms of the examination of the plan and whether that plan is sound, those judgments will be made. I reiterate the point so that the noble Lord might reflect on it and possibly write in due course, certainly before Report. If you have two authorities which are at odds and take a different view, does the examination of the plan have to take a view as to which of those two authorities might be the most reasonable in their approach and therefore influence the outcome, or is that process in terms of co-operation just looking at whether each party played the game?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

One of the things the Bill provides for, as we have just discussed in Clause 95, is the duty to co-operate. It is not a light thing; it is a duty. I mentioned in the précis I gave in response to the noble Lord that there are sanctions against authorities whereby they run the risk of their local plan failing the examiner’s test. If the noble Lord would like me to write to him specifically on that I will do so. I apologise if communications have been such that he has not had the usual courtesies extended in terms of being informed about government amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I am conscious of the need to make haste and I am perhaps making too much. There are a lot of “nots” in this amendment. Obviously where local development frameworks are in place, local authorities are consistently working on development plan documents. In any clarification that may be being made, we would not want to arrive at a situation in which an emerging policy of an authority, which is traditionally given some weight by planning committees and often by the inspector, is disallowed because the final plan has not yet been formally adopted after the hearing by the inspector. I do not expect my noble friend to respond in detail on that point, but it is an extremely important point because emerging DPDs are very often the reflection of the latest thinking of local people and a response to localist pressure.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is quite right in moving this probing amendment to emphasise that the preparation of plans is a great challenge for local authorities. It is central to the Localism Bill and is certainly very important for them. We believe in a timely plan-led system, free from unnecessary targets imposed by central government. We trust local councils and their communities to choose to prepare plans where they feel that they need to shape development in their areas as quickly as they can. This is why we have been careful to retain the basic process of developing local plans, including public examination, and we are trying to make them work better in the interests of transparency and accountability.

The noble Lord’s amendment, which I accept is probing, would penalise councils without adopted plans in place by the time the Bill is enacted. I think we would all accept that this would not achieve good, responsible local planning. Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, because we agree that councils should get on with their plans. Our presumption in favour of sustainable development would be the right tool to ensure that planning applications are considered. We are clear that the presumption should be that councils should say yes to development if their plans are out of date. While we share the previous Government’s ambition that the plans should not be delayed, we know that their approach of top-down deadlines imposed in the 2004 Act just did not work.

In addition, the amendment also comes across as an unnecessarily centralising measure. Instead we want to use positive incentives, such as the new homes bonus and the community infrastructure levy, to encourage councils to plan properly. We are clear that councils will be expected to say yes to development where their plans are out of date. There is a steady flow of plans coming through and we do not believe that legislating for deadlines is the right approach. The aforementioned NPPF and a policy presumption in favour of sustainable development are the right tools. Together they are more immediate and effective levers that will incentivise the same behaviour.

The amendment would also undermine a fundamental part of the system by removing the discretion from the decision-maker to determine what issues should be material considerations to an individual case. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is in a position to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am grateful to the Minister. I will certainly withdraw the amendment, but I am still a little unclear about the situation in which the local planning authority has not yet gone through the processes and got its local development plan in place. What will determine the acceptability of planning permissions that are sought in the interim? Very soon there will be the NPPF but I understand that it will be written at a fairly generic level—necessarily, as this is the virtue that has been made of it by the Government—so it will not pick up a lot of detail. How will those issues be settled, with the lacuna of no current plan? On what criteria will planning applications be made?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think I gave the noble Lord the answer to this when I said that the presumption would be that the planning should be in accordance with the NPPF and any other material considerations. Outside that, the presumption must be that approval is given, so there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, there is an incentive for local authorities to get these plans in place—I think I have made that point throughout our discussions on these amendments—and all other material considerations have to be met, so it does not happen totally in the void. Local authorities must have regard to their own circumstances when taking other matters into account, which is all the more reason for them to be working on these plans at the present time.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister again. I think that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has articulated the issue more effectively than I did. I would like to read the record on this. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The process of co-operative working actually requires co-operation and a sense of shared purpose in serving the communities that the local authorities represent. There may well be tensions. There may well be situations where there is difficulty in seeking agreement. The law will place on local authorities a duty to seek to resolve these differences. If they show that they have not considered the outcomes of a co-operative process in formulating their local plans, those plans will be rejected. There is, therefore, gentle coercion. However, as with all circumstances where power is being devolved down to local authorities, the public interest is being vested in those democratically elected bodies—namely, the local authorities concerned. That is the purpose of this legislation. I do not need to lecture the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the virtues of democracy and the accountability that comes with it. What is missing is the sense that Whitehall is looming large over the whole process and is seeking to put pressure to achieve a particular outcome through this process. It is important to emphasise that.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Lord has been generous in speaking to all the amendments, but I want to be clear on the housing issue that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, described. We have a similar issue in Luton. One authority with a desperate need for affordable housing that cannot be accommodated within the borough may look across the boundary and see opportunities there, but the other authority may take the view, “We don’t want any of this affordable housing encroaching upon our villages”. How is that situation to be resolved? You might have one authority that has genuinely gone through a consultation exercise, has taken a view, and has said, “We don’t want that form of housing here”. Another authority may have a desperate need for that housing. When the soundness of the plan is due to be judged, will the inspector involved just see whether or not the processes and so on have complied with what is required under the co-operation duty, or will there be some value judgment that the inspector can make, and say, “In all the circumstances, this was an outrageous position for you to take, and you have therefore not complied with the duty to co-operate”?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It may be easier to consider the detail of the point that the noble Lord has raised when we come to discuss the next series of amendments. In general terms, there will be evaluations not just of the outcome of the local plan but of the way in which evidence has been collected together in order to provide that plan. That is perhaps a safeguard that we might have. We will have an opportunity to talk about housing in particular, so I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I seek to move on—I have been talking a long time, but there were a lot of amendments.

In winding up, let me deal with Amendment 147HN, which seeks to define planning documents by referring to town and country planning and marine planning legislation. However, the term “planning documents” is not used in the provision. As it stands, the duty covers all local planning authority documents that set out their policies in relation to the development and use of land. It also covers marine plans. This amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 147LA, which seeks to require the bodies subject to the duty to co-operate to have regard to the activities of prescribed bodies, is also unnecessary as this is already provided for in Clause 95, in new Section 33A(2)(b).

I now come to an exciting point in bold type that says that Amendment 147Q addresses a typographical error in Clause 95. We are happy to accept this amendment when it is moved by the noble Lord. I hope that noble Lords will remind me when that particular amendment is called.

I will close by saying that I am satisfied that the duty to co-operate will ensure that local councils, county councils and other bodies work together in the spirit of constructive and active dialogue. That will maximise effective working in the preparation of local and marine plans in relation to strategic cross-boundary issues and county matters. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lords are willing to withdraw the amendments.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot give an answer to the noble Baroness at this moment but I can assure her that when the copy of the NPPF is sent, I will accompany it with a letter giving the arrangements for the guidance to go with it. I hope that that will help the noble Baroness. In the mean time, I hope that this has been a useful debate. It has rather reinforced the debate we had earlier and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the contributions from other noble Lords. I am not a veteran of past debates and discussions around planning and I am not sure yet whether that is a disadvantage or an advantage. Perhaps I should assess the matter at the end of proceedings.

The noble Lord, Lord Reay, is right. There is no point in debating the document if we do not have it—so the sooner we get it, the better. I would not agree with him on climate change but it looks as though that will be a subject for debate as our deliberations proceed. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, this is a very important document. I am a little unclear from the Minister whether he supports the principle that there should be in the Bill an obligation to produce an NPPF and some parliamentary process attached to that. I am not asking for the content of it but whether he supports the principle. I may have missed it when the Minister was responding, but I am not sure that he dealt with that point. I understand that, as a parliamentary process, a Select Committee might be a more productive route than a few days on the Floor of this House, although that can be good fun as well. I should be interested in the Minister’s view on that.

I apologise to my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I had not realised that his amendment had been grouped with this one. As the Minister said, it is, perhaps, more prescriptive. My understanding was that national policy statements sit alongside the NPPF, and I think that is what the Minister has confirmed. I am happy to withdraw the amendment but before I do so, can the Minister say what the problem is with having a requirement in the Bill to produce an NPPF? That requirement is not there. What is it that obliges a Government to keep it up to date?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is quite right: there is no reference to the NPPF in the Bill. The Government have no intention at this stage to include it in the Bill, but we will listen to any argument that the noble Lord puts forward and consider the matter. However, it is not the Government’s intention to produce an amendment to put a reference to the NPPF in the Bill.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Will the Minister just say why? I know it is not there at the moment and that he will not accept this amendment, but why do the Government not wish to put that in the Bill?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am answering the question directly. I think the noble Lord wants to know what the Government’s position is. The rationale behind it, I expect—I am only deducing this—is that the Government want flexibility in the mechanisms that they use in national policy frameworks in future and in any replacement device that they might consider necessary. Not enshrining the NPPF in primary legislation makes it easier to change the arrangements. None the less, there is determination at the moment to use the NPPF as the main device. I have some advice on this matter which may help. The law already requires a local planning authority, when making plans, to have regard to policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State. As we know, the NPPF is a replacement for that guidance and advice. Therefore, this applies to the NPPF. The NPPF’s authority derives not from this Bill but from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. In the absence of an NPPF, the Secretary of State would still be obliged to issue guidance under those Acts. That is where the NPPF fits into the equation.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, again, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As I understand it, he is saying that local planning authorities must have regard to what the Secretary of State issues. The missing link is what requires the Secretary of State to produce the framework. This is an issue to which I should like to return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 30th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the amendments, and say that we are with the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Lucas, on this. It is an opportunity for the Government to set out quite broadly their view on the exclusion, not only for particular planning applications but for the broader role of planning briefs and everything that goes with the planning process. Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I think that we should congratulate the Government on their earlier concessions. That has helped our deliberations to move on a lot.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that of course it must be right that people have the opportunity to engage and influence their neighbourhood and place. That is just what the neighbourhood planning provisions in the Bill are designed to do, with a referendum attached to that. We have some amendments coming now suggesting that there should be earlier consultation in the process of those engaged in developing plans, so we are with you on that. That is within the structure of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Best, made an important point about LDFs. We need to get on with that as so many of them are not yet completed. We have a lacuna, with regional spatial strategies going before many of these plans were in place, and the data associated with all of those are in danger of disappearing. We propose to deal with that by transition arrangements but that is a debate for another day, if not another week at the rate we are going. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to clarify, as far as they are able, the scope of the exemption around planning as that is hugely important.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity as it was a key area and the decision to table the amendments has helped to move the Bill forward. I am, however, in a less than satisfactory situation in the sense that we can see that a number of factors now come into play. The definition of planning appeals, an appeal process, and the rest of it means that it will require some further thought to see what the implications are. It is clear that a referendum on planning applications can be ruled out, but indicative planning and the like with consultative processes are a matter that we need to consider, as well as how exactly they might be brought into this process. My noble friend Lord True carefully articulated the importance of making sure that the public voice in these matters is not stifled. We accept that, but on the other hand we do not want the whole referendum process to be totally absorbed on planning matters.

I promised my noble friend Lord True that I would write to him. Indeed, I will write to all noble Lords and place a copy in the Library of our position on this issue, so that it is quite clear. However, I do not from this Dispatch Box want to give an on-the-hoof answer which may mislead noble Lords in this regard; I do not think that helps to take the debate forward and I apologise.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

We appreciate what the Minister has said because we are likely to get into planning issues next week—maybe on Tuesday at some stage, or maybe not even till Thursday. It would really help our deliberations if by then the Government had been able to focus more specifically on these issues, and perhaps we could have some reassurance on that.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord for assisting me. Knitting it into the neighbourhood planning proposals is clearly going to be important as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, was worried not so much about his car-parking charges as the fines when he did not pay them, if I heard him correctly. At any rate, perhaps one may lead to the other. Our amendments put in place a framework for councils to decide to refuse a referendum in certain cases. The issues raised by noble Lords clearly illustrate how difficult it would be to compile a list. This is why we have adopted our approach in our recommendations generally about how councils may determine particular referendum petitions.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this is a substantial group of amendments that includes several government amendments. Perhaps I can put our amendments into some context and address the issues raised by the other amendments in this group.

Our amendments set out the requirement for relevant authorities to approve and publish a pay policy statement which, in addition to the measures already in the Bill, must set out an authority’s policies on remuneration of its lowest-paid employees and the relationship between the remuneration of its chief officers and the rest of its workforce. As Will Hutton set out in his report on fair pay in the public sector, published on 15 March, there is value in ensuring that decisions about senior pay are taken in the context of similar decisions on lower-paid staff. Such an approach broadens the debate beyond discussion about salary amounts of top earners and into whether the pay of those individuals is justified.

These measures, therefore, further increase local democratic accountability and transparency over how decisions on pay are made, and embody the commitment given by Ministers to reflect on the measures in the light of Hutton’s report. The measures seek to minimise the potential burden on authorities and ensure that decisions on pay remain ones for individual employers to take locally.

The opposition amendments would take those measures beyond the scope of pay accountability. Our intention, through the provisions in the Bill and our amendments, is to bring greater accountability and transparency to an authority’s approach to remuneration of its own employees. We do not seek to prescribe what the approach should be by requiring authorities to publish a list of numbers, or by roaming about on other matters such as local decisions around recruitment or engagement with providers—which would be the effect of the opposition amendments. Our Amendment 101, in its requirements relating to the remuneration of the lowest-paid employees, is broader than the Opposition’s proposal and will lead to the publication of policies in a rounder way than by focusing on policies relating to total salary costs and numbers of staff, which is what Amendment 101A would achieve.

Amendment 101 would require authorities to disclose their policies on the relationship between remuneration of their chief officers and the rest of their employees, including the lowest paid. We do not feel it necessary to require authorities to break down their policies in this regard in the way proposed in Amendment 101A. Indeed, Will Hutton, in his report on fair pay in the public sector, highlights that, in seeking to measure pay dispersion using a pay multiple, comparison between top and lowest pay is not the most effective approach. As we have made clear, charities, voluntary organisations and businesses—particularly small businesses—have repeatedly called for the amount of regulation and red tape surrounding local government contracts to be reduced. I am sure that noble Lords opposite agree with that general principle. In this context, it is not appropriate to use this Bill to impose further duties on authorities to have policies relating to the pay of those who work for an organisation with which it contracts.

Nothing in the Bill limits the extent of information that an authority may include in its pay policy statement. Authorities may take the local view to include any other policies as they think fit. This could include policies on contracting staff where they have developed them locally. We will undertake to make this clear in guidance rather than set it out in the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord True for his work in submitting Amendment 105. Perhaps I can reassure him and other noble Lords that local authorities must always abide by relevant employment legislation when carrying out their duties as employers. This obligation extends to the formation of their policies on pay. Pay policy statements are intended to be an articulation of such policies. The measures that we are introducing do not take precedence over employment law. A pay policy statement could not be lawfully used by relevant authorities to sanction matters that are not in line with their existing legal duties and obligations. Similarly, any changes to policies included in a published pay policy statement, which must be approved by a full council, must also adhere to requirements placed on authorities as employers under employment legislation. We can undertake to reinforce this position in guidance, to which authorities must have regard. We believe that this will achieve the aims of the amendment without it being necessary to remind authorities of their duties as employers as set out in the Bill. I hope that I have assisted the Committee in its consideration of this matter. I beg to move Amendment 99.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for introducing the government amendments. Indeed, I thank the Government for bringing forward the proposals, which build on the debate in the other place. I see that he has taken the opportunity to get his retaliation in first on our amendments. I will speak to Amendments 101A, 101B, 102A and 108B.

When these matters were addressed on Report in another place, the Minister, Andrew Stunell, said that Will Hutton’s report,

“made some clear recommendations, particularly about the benefit of setting decisions on senior pay in the context of the pay of the rest of a body’s work force”—

meaning the median earnings, and I accept that point. He continued:

“We are sympathetic to that idea, particularly the potential for linking lower pay with senior pay”—

so the Minister in the other place focused on low pay as well. He went on to say that he did,

“not think it would be helpful to use the Bill to address the pay of contracting bodies”,

which is consistent with what the noble Lord just said. However, he then went on to state,

“That does not prevent a local authority from developing a local policy to ensure that bodies with which it contracts are open about their rates of pay as a matter of contract”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/11; cols. 210-11.]

Although significant growth in executive pay is largely a private sector phenomenon, we support the thrust of greater transparency. We also support the Government’s approach to tackling this in the manner provided, rather than as in the other two options set out in the impact assessment. As the fair pay report also concludes, evaluating these by benchmarking off the salary of the Prime Minister is a nonsense, particularly if you add in the benefits that the Prime Minister gets, which include a central London flat with access to rather a large garden, not to mention the odd country estate. A more realistic figure of his remuneration might be in excess of £0.5 million a year. However, the report also concludes that putting in limits of fixed multiples of lowest pay would, in a sense, be unfair as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Before we conclude, I thank the Minister for what he said. We accept that from the Government’s perspective, they have fulfilled the obligation they made in the other place. As I said in speaking to my amendments, I do not think they have fulfilled it as fully as we would have liked, but when can we expect to see the guidance in this area? That would help our deliberations and could potentially preclude a return visit to this matter on Report.

In respect of the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord True, who is no longer in his place—I understand he has to be elsewhere—competitive resolutions are not quite the environment I would have expected. It is certainly not how we conduct politics in Luton, but it raises all sorts of interesting questions, not for debate now, about people addressing those resolutions on a predetermined basis.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I understand exactly what the noble Lord is referring to, but I hope it has expedited this debate to the advantage of the Committee. I cannot give an answer on when the guidance will be available. If I am able to get that information, I will write to the noble Lord.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am pleased that we have been able to have this interesting debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has said, both case law and the Standards Boards have moved on this issue, but there has been a considerable degree of anxiety about it in local government service areas, as my noble friend Lord Newton said. I think the Committee will agree that that has not been in the interests of local democracy. That is why Clause 14 forms such an important part of this Bill and why we are bringing it forward, so I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate. My noble friend Lord Greaves has produced, if I may say so, a typical set of House of Lords probes, and I accept totally what he is seeking to do. I think it is the wish of the Committee that I should go through the amendments that he has tabled and make it clear what the particular wording means and why we consider it important that these little nuances are brought in.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that nothing in this clause stops proper decision-making. Indeed, nothing in the provisions means that decisions are not going to be taken properly, having regard to all relevant considerations. On Gypsy and Traveller sites and the issues to which she referred specifically, I assure her that local authorities operate under fairly firm statutory guidance on provision for these matters. Any debate about this matter would have to be conducted in a proper fashion. In the end, councillors make decisions within that framework. We know that some people hold quite strong views on such issues. We accept that. In a democracy, we have to accept that people come with strong views. Whether they come with a closed mind is a different issue altogether.

I will come back to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, but it might help if I first go through the amendments. Amendment 88 removes “(to any extent)”. We believe that by putting in “to any extent” we bring clarity to the issue. We are seeking to give councillors clarity that they should be fully entitled to the freedom to campaign on issues that are important to their local communities. There should be no suggestion in the drafting of this provision that there are degrees of having a closed mind that need to be taken into account when deciding whether this provision applies. That is why that phrase is in the clause. It is to make it absolutely clear that there is no degree of a closed mind that might be the subject of predetermination. If this amendment were accepted, the position on predetermination would be less clear for elected members and the public, which would defeat the whole purpose of this clause, which is to provide clarification on the current position.

Amendment 89 is an unnecessary drafting change. The phrase we are using here is taken from previous case law and provides clarity that a councillor is not to appear to have had a closed mind if they had previously campaigned on an issue. The fact that they may have campaigned on an issue does not necessarily mean that they are providing evidence that they appear to have a closed mind. This drafting seeks to provide clarity for councillors—we want them to be sure that they are doing the right thing, and we would all agree that councillors want to do the right thing—as well as judges and the courts. Indeed, the reason this is in the Bill is to provide some statutory law where so much has been dependent on case law.

On Amendment 90, the word “just” in this sentence indicates more clearly the function the provision is performing, which is excluding certain conditions from the judgment to be made about whether someone had a closed mind. Read literally, without the word “just” the sentence could mean that any decision-maker doing something that indicates the view that they will take is automatically considered not to have a closed mind, so the inclusion of the word “just” avoids the potential for this misinterpretation, which would lead to a result that we do not want. The word “just” therefore defines the matter more clearly.

Amendment 91 would narrow the range of councillors’ activities that we are seeking to ensure cannot lead to accusations of a councillor having a closed mind. Our current drafting makes it clear that if a decision-maker had previously “done anything” that indicated what view they took on an issue, they would not as a result be considered to have a closed mind. I reassure my noble friend that we fully intend the phrase “done anything” to include anything that a member may have said, written, or perhaps even held aloft on a placard. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

On Amendments 92, 95 and 96, the legislation has been written to apply to elected, co-opted and other members of councils. There is no need for the provisions to be extended to paid officers in local councils. I assure my noble friend that separate rules are in place for dealing with officer bias in decision-making. This clause is not designed to address officer bias. The definition referred to in Amendments 95 and 96 of the type of decisions covered by these provisions does, however, need to include this reference to functions of an officer of the authority, because certain officer decisions are exercised by elected or co-opted members of the council for technical reasons; some of the functions carried out by elected mayors, the chairman of an authority, and leader of an executive are regarded as functions of officers of the authority.

On Amendment 94, we do not accept that this distinction should be made between the role of a co-opted member on a committee of the authority and the role of a co-opted member on a joint committee. Co-opted members of a committee of an authority would be free to express a view or campaign on an issue without being at risk of being unfairly accused of predetermination, but co-opted members of a joint committee would not. There are certainly instances in which co-opted members can sit on joint committees, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any less capable of reaching a fair decision—something that lies at the heart of all of this—when sitting on a single-authority committee.

Amendment 96ZA makes a perfectly reasonable suggestion, but I refer noble Lords to our published impact assessment of these clauses. The impact assessment states that there will be a full policy-implementation review of the whole Localism Bill, including the policies on predetermination. That will provide all the information that I believe the noble Lord is looking for in this amendment, so I hope that when the time comes the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether, if as a matter of fact a councillor had a closed mind, the councillor could participate in a decision, what evidence would be used to determine that he had a closed mind and how this would be affected by the proposal in Clause 14. If a councillor is actually biased, he cannot participate in a decision; evidence of a closed mind could be that he has declared that he has a closed mind or that he refuses to listen to any new arguments. In reality, if a councillor says that he is not prepared to listen to any arguments and is self-evidently not prepared to do his duty by doing so, as we would all expect local government to do in a democracy, he would self-evidently be saying that he had a closed mind.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I understand and take that point. But if you had someone who declared that they had a closed mind, is not the import of subsection (2) that, if they declared that at any point up to the time when the decision was made, it would be ignored? That is what the provision says. If that is right, how do you adduce the fact that someone has a closed mind? That is what I am struggling with. We accept that, if you have got a closed mind, you should not be involved and that decisions could be unlawful. If people have room to review the facts, that is fine. But my concern is what evidence you would now get. Prior to this, if someone had said, “I have got a closed mind” and there was surrounding evidence to that effect, it would be clear where we are. But under this proposal, you have to ignore what someone has done. What someone has done is what they have said, what they have written and the banners that they may hold aloft. How does the Minister square that issue?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the situation, as I understand it, is that statements made prior to a decision being made in the period in which a campaign or a discussion is being held should be evidence that a councillor may have a strong opinion, but that does not necessarily prejudice the decision that they are going to make. But if they say at the time that they are making a decision that they have a closed mind, they should not participate in that decision. The practicalities of this are to put pressure on all councillors, however passionate they are about an issue, to consider their position before they vote as to whether they have genuinely considered alternatives that are presented to them. In which case, as long as they have done that, this clause means that in no way can they be considered to have had a closed mind if they have done that in all conscience. This is designed to provide a framework of behaviour in local government, which I am sure that the noble Lord would seek to encourage.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

It is important that we get to the core of this. From what the noble Lord is saying, is it the case that if someone said every day of the week for two months leading up to the decision that they have a closed mind, that would be ignored under these provisions and that if they did not say, “I have a closed mind” on the day on which the decision is made, there is no difficulty?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It is fair to say that anyone who did not say that they were considering the matter with a fair consideration of the argument might well be in some difficulty. But what is disregarded by this clause is that evidence of the view that a person takes of a matter is not evidence of their state of mind when they are making that decision. It is important to understand that this is designed to enforce an openness of mind at the point of decision-making, which, after all, was always the purpose of predetermination.

The problem with predetermination was that it excluded people who had campaigned and, as my noble friend Lord Newton in his helpful contribution pointed out, the difficulty that a lot of local councillors had was knowing to what extent they could participate in the decision-making process if they had campaigned strongly on an issue. All this now does is say to a local councillor, “However hard you have campaigned on an issue, you should still make decisions without a closed mind or not participate in that decision”. But that is for the councillor himself to determine, rather than be determined by this clause.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and I am sorry to have interrupted him on two or three occasions, but this is a very important issue. We accept the anxiety in local government about what councillors can and cannot do, and the importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, of the democratic component of this so that people are not precluded from campaigning on issues they feel strongly about. But that is the position at the moment, for as long as their minds are ajar.

Sometimes very cautious advice is given and therefore people tend to be more restricted than the law may otherwise allow, but notwithstanding all that—I think we have common cause in what we see as a proper outcome in this, so that if you have a closed mind or you are going to be involved in a decision, you should be able to judge the facts objectively and not predetermine the matter—I still see a difficulty in this provision. That is because I cannot see how you would ever get evidence of someone having a closed mind on the basis of this provision. It seems that you would have to ignore what they had said and done and campaigned around right up to the point when they make the decision. That seems to me to be an anomaly and I am still not sure where it leaves us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will be brief. I am not unsympathetic to the noble Lord’s amendment but I am not sure that I agree with the basis on which he proposes it. I think that he is distinguishing some circumstances where predetermination can be dispensed with from others where it should not. Without reopening the arguments that we have just been through, I do not believe that that is the import of Clause 14. In a sense, we are still awaiting the definitive government view on that. The issues around predetermination ought to run throughout the decision-making process. It is not quasi-judicial planning issues; there are lots of other decisions that councillors may make. As I understand it, if they have discretion on decisions, it must be real discretion. If they have pre-empted it by predetermination, there is the prospect that that decision will be unlawful, whatever area of decision-making is involved. However, I would not particularly disagree with taking those licensing operations outside the provisions of Clause 14.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for temporarily forgetting that he is on the opposition Benches and not the government Benches and, in effect, making the case that the Government will be making to my noble friend Lord Greaves. On this issue, I am afraid that I beg to differ with my noble friend.

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham; I imputed this set of amendments to him and not to my noble friend when we were discussing the previous grouping. It probably rather shook him to discover that he was the author of a set of amendments that he had not actually been involved with.

On Amendment 93, it might help to clarify just how radical the change is. I hope to provide some reassurance with what I am going to say. The Government’s view is that an elected member is equally able to listen to arguments and evidence and come to a fair decision on what my noble friend has referred to as a personal licensing matter as he is on any other licensing matter. That means that there is no justification for leaving unclear the circumstances that mean that a councillor has to withdraw from participating in any licensing decision process. That lack of clarity arises from the fact that we as a Government do not accept the distinction being drawn here between what a councillor can say about a decision relating to a personal licence and what they can say about a decision on any other licensing matter. We strongly believe—this is at the heart of our policy on predetermination—that councillors should no longer be restricted in which of their opinions they are free to express to the communities that they are elected to represent. Councillors, like any other individuals, will have regard to laws on libel and data protection when discussing individual circumstances or information which they may hold. However, it would be wrong to restrict them in this way from commenting on what may be a matter of great interest to their constituents.

I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment. I am afraid that the Government are not prepared to see these as exceptional circumstances from the general principle of predetermination and the freedom of councillors to express their view prior to making a decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that we cannot have a free-for-all and that it should be mandatory for every local authority to have a code of conduct. There should be a universal code and an appeals procedure. If that means that we would support each of these amendments, that is where we are.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: We are back on track on an issue which we covered in some of the previous debate. I hope that I have made the position of the Government clear on the Standards Board and the unwillingness of the Government to take the position of imposing a code of conduct on councillors from the centre. The philosophy of the coalition is that the Localism Bill means what it says. It is up to local authorities to present the conduct of their public duties in a way that is to the satisfaction of the electorates that they represent. In no way does that imply that misconduct can be approved of but it is for local authorities to determine what measures they put in place to effect a code of conduct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am not sure that we would agree with everything that the noble Lord has said, but we would appreciate the opportunity to join in the discussions with government together with the coalition parties.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank noble Lords. I am sort of having a second bite of the cherry within the group, because I can talk specifically about the proposals of my noble friend. I hope that I can really reassure him. He talked about appeal structures and the like and the need to maintain them—and of course human rights legislation provides for this. But in actual fact the sanctions that the Secretary of State intends to provide for in regulations under Clause 18(2) will be relatively low-level sanctions based on powers of discipline that councils already possess. It is not our intention to confer any new disciplinary powers of the sort that would give rise to a need or expectation for a bureaucratic appeal process.

I cannot support Amendment 98M, which would insert a new clause relating to parish standards, although I understand the interest in it. The legislation as currently drafted gives parishes the power to have a code or a standards committee if they would like. Parish councils are free to make arrangements to work jointly with other authorities. My noble friend is mistaken if he believes that advice is not available to parish councils. The last Government published the Quality Parish and Town Council Scheme; it was published by the department in 2003, and it gives information about model charters whereby principal and local councils in England can work in partnership. That document can be viewed on the DCLG website. We intend here also that the regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 18(1) will specify that the registration of parish members' interests will be carried out by the monitoring officer of the district within which the relevant parish falls.

There was some talk about the criminal sanctions for failing to register, and I note noble Lords’ concerns on that. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked, too, that he might be a party to discussions that we might have before Report on those issues. I assure noble Lords that we would be happy to discuss that aspect of Clause 19 relating to breaching regulations under Clause 18. With that, I ask my noble friend Lord Tope to withdraw the amendment.

Pensions

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Thursday 5th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I remind my noble friend that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, clearly indicated, one group of people who are likely to benefit from this introduction are women pensioners who have not had the opportunity to accumulate benefit through the current pension system.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, described these proposals as far-reaching but, as the Minister himself has acknowledged, there is a lot of uncertainty about what the shape of this will be, and indeed about whether it will ever come to fruition. One thing is very clear from the consultation document; there will be no new money attached to it. There will therefore be not only issues of equity between existing pensioners and new pensioners but, among the new pensioners, clearly some element of redistribution. Will the noble Lord say something about that?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

In an earlier answer I indicated that there would be high earners over a longer working life whose accumulation of benefit would be less as a result of these proposals. However, the whole programme is designed to benefit those who have not normally, under the existing system, had the opportunity to accumulate a basic state pension that is adequate for their retirement. That must be the strategy that we seek to address. Anything involving pensions is a long-term programme and must seek consensus across Governments if we are likely to succeed.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 51, which opposes the abolition of the East of England Development Agency. I am perhaps a lonely voice for the east, although it is a region that I know the Minister knows well, so I look for some particular favour in his response tonight. I do not think that the east as a region has the innate identity that we have heard about tonight, particularly with the north-east and the passion that goes with that. We are probably a bit more like the south-west; we have grown to be a region. Before I develop my theme, I just say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, who I think was arguing for the benefits of some regional selective tax breaks, that selective tax breaks can be good for job creation, but mostly for accountants and lawyers. For me, it is a slippery slope and we need to think about it very hard.

I take this opportunity to reflect on the opportunities for the east, which EEDA has encapsulated in its Blueprint for Growth, and on why the fragmentation of the regional effort will diminish those opportunities. I caution that the replacement local enterprise partnerships are no substitute for the RDA. In any event, in the east some 27 per cent of the population and 26 per cent of the businesses will not be covered by a LEP.

My first encounter with the RDA was about a decade ago, as leader of the council, when we heard the news that the Vauxhall car plant was to close; in fact it was—would you believe?—heard over the radio while people were still working on the production line. I did my job as leader of the council in my office in Luton town hall; I sent off a fax to the chief executive of General Motors in Detroit demanding that it rescind this closure notice. I still await a reply. It was the RDA that sprung into action and convened a strong local partnership, which took action around skills training, supply chain diversification, job placement, investment and infrastructure. It was the RDA’s efforts that made a significant difference to the local economy and to literally thousands of local people in Luton and the surrounding area.

EEDA has a clear mission to improve the economy of the east of England. It works across the six counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk. The east of England is one of the fastest-growing regions in the UK in terms of population. It is a beautiful and diverse region, rich with cultural heritage and international trade links. It can be proud of its many achievements, but it faces many challenges, especially from intensifying global competition.

Despite the lack of homogeneity across the region, EEDA’s efforts have been spread right across the area—in its impact in Bedfordshire borough, central Bedfordshire and Luton, for example. In the past 10 years, EEDA has invested more than £100 million in this sub-region. Some 6,000 jobs have been created or safeguarded, 13,000 people have improved skills, 1,000 businesses have been helped to start or grow, 2,300 people have been supported into employment and 43 hectares of brownfield land have been reclaimed. Funding of the UK Centre for Carnival Arts in Luton has created a national centre for carnival excellence, boosting the local economy and the cultural heritage.

In Norfolk over that period, EEDA similarly has created or safeguarded some 6,000 jobs, improved the skills of 22,000 people, helped 1,100 start-ups and reclaimed 72 hectares of land. It has also supported projects such as the Hethel technology park in its bid to be a globally recognised centre of excellence for low-carbon engineering and manufacturing. The Cambridge rural enterprise and mentoring initiative is encouraging start-ups in economically disadvantaged parts of the region.

The East of England Manufacturing Advisory Service has supported Vacuumatic, the world leader in paper counting technology, to implement lean manufacturing principles. Over the past 10 years, EEDA has invested £81 million directly in the Hertfordshire economy, helping some 22,600 businesses to start up. Highly skilled jobs for research companies are to be created as part of a £120 million expansion of the GlaxoSmithKline bioscience campus at Stevenage. Some £8 million has helped to support small life science companies and to protect jobs in the biopark in Welwyn Garden City. EEDA investment has regenerated Ipswich waterfront. EEDA has also invested in the Haven Gateway Partnership, the single most important cluster of ports in the UK. Everywhere you look in the region, it is possible to see the impact of the RDA.

Looking back is one thing, but what of the future? One in every nine UK businesses is based in the east of England—more than 430,000. Business investment in R&D is three times higher than the UK average. It has the most successful life sciences cluster outside the US. The world-renowned Cambridge technology cluster is in the region representing 1,400 companies and employing 43,000 people. The east of England has significant capability in both mature and developing high-value knowledge-based markets. It is already a major generator and supplier of energy, including leading the way in renewable energy generation, which makes it the centre of one of the world’s largest markets for offshore wind energy and the UK’s most dense area of offshore development between the Humber, the Greater Wash and the Thames estuary.

Despite these successes, the region requires a skills base that better suits its needs. There are disparities in economic performance within the region and areas such as Luton have high deprivation. The region suffers from an infrastructure deficit, with congestion on the transport network costing the UK more than £1 billion per annum. There is only one commercial broadband network in the east of England, which provides coverage to only around 60 per cent of the region.

It is at this time of huge opportunities but significant challenges that the Government choose to pull the plug on the agency that has been at the heart of the success of the east of England and best placed to address its challenges. In parallel, they are killing off regional spatial strategies. There is a continuing need for joined-up interventions in support of skills, infrastructure, business support and supply chain managers.

The focus that the RDA brought to the region is being scattered, as we heard from others, in all sorts of directions—the EU programme to DCLG and Defra, inward investment to UKTI, manufacturing support to BIS, and Business Link, eventually, to some national scheme. Other noble Lords have mentioned issues of asset disposal. One of the issues that needs to be addressed, especially when regeneration funding is involved, is the potential for clawbacks, particularly for local authorities.

So much for localism. The local enterprise partnership does not cover the whole region; it covers parts of three old RDAs. By all accounts the process locally fits the Cable description of being,

“a little Maoist and chaotic”.

As we have heard, LEPs have inadequate funding, there are no significant resources for their development and local authorities are going to be very hard pressed to fund even the secretarial support. It is not too late to draw back from the hasty and ill thought-through decision to abolish RDAs. The east of England will certainly be less well placed to realise its potential without the RDA. This is a loss not only for the region but for UK plc.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It has been an excellent opportunity to consider the expertise that this House can provide on a subject covering all points of the United Kingdom. I understand the passion; I speak as a provincial myself. We are all in politics, to a lesser or greater extent, simply because we believe in where we come from and in the communities from which we originate and because we care about the people with whom we live and work. However, there may be other ways of dealing with the imbalances in the economy in the United Kingdom and I ask noble Lords to listen to the argument as to why the Government are proposing a changed approach. Given the breadth and detail of this debate, I regret that I am not likely to be able to respond to every point that has been raised, but I assure noble Lords that I will go through the record and seek to answer the points in a letter, which I will circulate to all noble Lords who have spoken this evening.

The Government’s economic ambition is to create a fairer and better balanced economy. We wish to see business opportunities in a broad range of sectors balanced across the country and between businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke with experience and authority and indicated that the real challenge of building investment and providing job opportunities was probably outside the traditional structures represented by the RDAs. Our Local Growth White Paper sets out how we will put businesses and local communities in charge of their own futures, rather than having to rely on centrally imposed regional development agencies. If I may say so, I felt that some of the speeches confused the effectiveness of critical mass with the greater strength of coherence and real local empowerment and focus.

The amendments that we are debating as a group would preserve the regional development agencies as a whole, or those in specified individual regions. We believe that preserving all or any of them would be a retrograde step. In December, we placed in the Library of the House a short briefing paper, which sets out the reasons for abolishing the RDAs and gives a snapshot of the situation in each region. This has now been updated. Indeed, the number of LEPs has increased dramatically since that time. That update has been placed in the Library and I will build on this information in the course of my remarks.

We set out the rationale for our proposals in the Local Growth White Paper, which was published in October 2010. One key theme in the document is the need to shift power to local communities and businesses. We believe that localities should lead their own development and have the flexibility to tailor their approach to this and to their individual circumstances. If this is to work, they must own their own economic strategy; one imposed from regional or national level would not have this local ownership. For all the good work that they did, the RDAs did not really belong to the communities within the regions. Many of the policies and initiatives that they delivered were on behalf of national government and did not always recognise the varied needs and opportunities that individual places have.

The RDAs were also designed around administrative regions rather than real economic geography. While it would be possible to discuss this matter in the context of every one of the individual RDAs, I would like to discuss two specific examples now. My first example is the south-west region, stretching from Swindon in the east to Penzance in the west and covering an enormous geographical and economic range, from the prosperous and relatively well connected places in the upper Thames valley to relatively isolated and deprived areas in Cornwall. Bristol has many problems in common with our largest cities—those of economic success and of economic inclusion. The issues faced in rural parts of the region are quite different. Linkages, too, differ, with parts of the region having close ties to London, the south-east, the West Midlands and Wales, and others having no such link at all. The relevant policies in each case are quite different. RDAs sought to address that problem and to recognise the differences within their regions, but it makes no real sense to establish a single body to cover the entire region and to expect it somehow to understand and cope with that huge variety. It is far better for the local partners in Bristol to develop policies dealing with the specific issues that they face and for those in Cornwall to do likewise.

Welfare Reform

Debate between Lord McKenzie of Luton and Lord Taylor of Holbeach

Tuesday 5th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not have any figures to answer the noble Lord. The current child benefit system is very straightforward to administer, and that must be a great advantage in its favour.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the Minister proclaims simplicity for this scheme. How does he respond to a conundrum—one of many posed in today’s newspapers—in which someone asks:

“I earn £44,000 and have two children. Would I be better off with a small pay cut?”.

The answer is:

“Probably. Tax advisers are already devising ways in which people who earn just over the 40 per cent tax band can legally reduce their income so they still qualify for child benefit. It may be possible to reduce your pay through ‘salary sacrifice’ schemes such as buying extra holiday days”.

Is this not going to be horrendously complex? It is going to need a whole raft of anti-avoidance legislation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is an expert in these matters. Indeed, I have debated welfare, thresholds and marginality with him at the Dispatch Box before and I respect his contribution. However, inevitably when you draw a line in the sand, you find that there are people on that margin, and it is not unreasonable that they should seek to make sure that their affairs are not adversely affected by it.